ISP Imposes Data Cap, Explains It To Users With Condescending Pizza Analogy (arstechnica.com) 102
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Cable company WideOpenWest (which markets itself as WOW!) yesterday told customers that it is imposing a data cap and explained the change with a pizza analogy that would seem more appropriate for a kindergarten classroom than for an email informing Internet users of new, artificial limits on their data usage. The email said WOW is "introducing a monthly data usage plan for your Internet service on June 1, 2021" and described the system as follows:
"What's a monthly data usage plan? Let us illustrate ... Imagine that the WOW! network is a pizza. Piping hot. Toppings galore. Every WOW! customer gets their own slice of pizza, but the size of their slice is dependent on their Internet service plan. While customers who subscribe to 1 Gig get the largest slices, those with Internet 500 get a slightly smaller piece, and so on. But, it's all the same delicious, high-speed pizza that you know and love. Now, say you're not full after your slice and you grab another. That extra slice is like a data overage. Don't worry -- we got extra pizza... umm, data... just in case. If you exceed your data allowance, we'll automatically apply increments of 50GB for $10 to your account for the remainder of the current calendar month. Total overage charges will not exceed $50 per billing statement no matter how much data you use. Even better -- the first time you experience a data overage, we'll proactively waive fees."
The email did not mention that, unlike pizza, Internet data doesn't run out and that there is plenty for everyone as long as a network is properly constructed and provisioned. And despite paragraphs of comparing data to pizza, the email literally never says how much data customers will be allowed to use before they are charged extra. The answer is in a newly updated "network management practices" document that says the monthly cap will range from 1TB to 3TB: the 50Mbps download plan gets 1TB, plans between 100 and 300Mbps download speeds get 1.5TB, the 500 and 600Mbps plans get 2.5TB, and the gigabit plan gets 3TB. WOW has over 800,000 internet customers in parts of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, South Carolina, and Tennessee. In a separate document, WOW says that "[u]nlimited data plans may be added for an additional monthly charge" but doesn't say how much it will cost.
It's apparently not a bad April Fools' Day joke, either. People in the DSLReports forum have reportedly confirmed the changes with a WOW representative.
"What's a monthly data usage plan? Let us illustrate ... Imagine that the WOW! network is a pizza. Piping hot. Toppings galore. Every WOW! customer gets their own slice of pizza, but the size of their slice is dependent on their Internet service plan. While customers who subscribe to 1 Gig get the largest slices, those with Internet 500 get a slightly smaller piece, and so on. But, it's all the same delicious, high-speed pizza that you know and love. Now, say you're not full after your slice and you grab another. That extra slice is like a data overage. Don't worry -- we got extra pizza... umm, data... just in case. If you exceed your data allowance, we'll automatically apply increments of 50GB for $10 to your account for the remainder of the current calendar month. Total overage charges will not exceed $50 per billing statement no matter how much data you use. Even better -- the first time you experience a data overage, we'll proactively waive fees."
The email did not mention that, unlike pizza, Internet data doesn't run out and that there is plenty for everyone as long as a network is properly constructed and provisioned. And despite paragraphs of comparing data to pizza, the email literally never says how much data customers will be allowed to use before they are charged extra. The answer is in a newly updated "network management practices" document that says the monthly cap will range from 1TB to 3TB: the 50Mbps download plan gets 1TB, plans between 100 and 300Mbps download speeds get 1.5TB, the 500 and 600Mbps plans get 2.5TB, and the gigabit plan gets 3TB. WOW has over 800,000 internet customers in parts of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, South Carolina, and Tennessee. In a separate document, WOW says that "[u]nlimited data plans may be added for an additional monthly charge" but doesn't say how much it will cost.
It's apparently not a bad April Fools' Day joke, either. People in the DSLReports forum have reportedly confirmed the changes with a WOW representative.
But it's a buffet (Score:1)
you been here four hour you go now! (Score:4, Funny)
you been here four hour you go now!
Re: (Score:3)
God I miss John.
I can't believe I just signed up with these fuckers last week. :(
Guess I got the 1GB/s AND 3 TB MAX "FUCK YOU" PLAN.
Sigh.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That's one of the reasons I GTFO of one of the major tech regions and found myself a nice place in a place where schools are open and the cable ISP doesn't impose such things. In February I did ~30tb of downloading. Due to a bug in the bot I am building for research purposes, I only did ~22tb last month. Much shame I feel.
Re: (Score:2)
That's exactly why I signed up with WoW.
I wanted internet, apparently I got fucking pizza!
Re: (Score:2)
You can do that with pizza? I thought it was only apple pies!
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and an interesting FYI, at 1 GB/s, that 3 TB cap is reached in...
0.83333 hours!
WTF am I going to do for the rest of the month???
Re:I don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)
That isn't the same though. Electricity requires generating the energy, and that requires resources. Networks on the other hand have a fixed constant amount of availability. If it isn't used, its literally just wasted idle time for the routing gear.
Re: (Score:1)
Enterprise storage suffers the same problem - without a price signal no one bothers to review data holdings, and so they just grow and grow.
Re: (Score:3)
There is already a cost signal, the BANDWIDTH. If you're paying extra for 1gbe vs 50mbps, that is your cost factor. And these numbers reflect the actual static deployment of the network. Bandwidth caps have absolutely no bearing on the actual network. This has also been entirely proven by Comcast and others removing bandwidth caps during the pandemic without their networks falling apart. These bandwidth caps are literally just greedy money-grabs by multi-billion dollar corporations that hold monopolies or d
Re: I don't get it (Score:2)
Of course, you left out the political pressure factor. Politicians lobbied ISPs to not disconnect customers for nonpayment of monthly bills during the pandemic, and overage fees got lumped in. Using your logic ISPs can afford to operate without charging monthly fees because they did so (in some cases) during the pandemic.
In a similar vein, politicians decided that landlords couldn't evict tenants for nonpayment of rent, does that mean that rent is just a money grab by greedy landlords?
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a straight forward economic principle that without a cost signal, utilization will grow to exceed capacity.
A better analogy is induced demand like you see with freeways, and in your enterprise storage example as well. Except when it comes to networks, we don't actually see induced demand actually occurring. People tend to only use one application at a time, and the most bandwidth intensive applications (particularly video streaming) don't tend to increase their data usage that often. In other words, giving them more bandwidth isn't going to induce them into watching two 4k streams at a time. (Even if it did, that really isn't a lot of bandwidth in an age where symmetric gigabit last mile connections are common.)
In fact, ISPs actually already count on you not using as much data as you actually pay for. For cable ISPs, this can be as high as 250 to 1. We call that oversubscription, and it generally works. The only cases where it doesn't work are super rare, and those are going to be the users that use upwards of 6TB or more per month every single month.
And guess what? Even when users pay for the extra bandwidth, the ISPs boot them off anyways [arstechnica.com] if they use too much data.
Cox is a particularly interesting case because they make insanely high profit margins, especially with data overages in tow, and they weren't investing those earnings into the infrastructure. Then once COVID hit, and people started using just a little bit more of the bandwidth that they already pay for (even though it's still way less than what they actually pay for,) Cox had a major problem on their hands, and they had to go around capping everybody's upstream data to 10mbit, even if they paid for gig service (and 10mbit generally isn't enough bandwidth to be able to pull a gig downstream, depending on the application.) Basically every other ISP handled COVID without difficulty, including my ISP (Centurylink) who had no outages whatsoever, and more importantly, they don't even have data overage fees, and they've been doing a much better job at upgrading their infrastructure (in fact, they're gradually replacing their entire telecom footprint with FTTP...all while not needing to charge for data overages, and get this, they only charge me $65/month for a symmetric gig here in Phoenix.)
Anyways, bottom line, purpose of charging data overages has nothing to do with managing network usage, its only real purpose is just an excuse to charge more money to an already captive audience.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, giving them more bandwidth isn't going to induce them into watching two 4k streams at a time.
If someone wants to do that, they should be able to. It's not a problem.
Having more network and finding uses for it is a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
The same thing keeps happening to me, but with my files and my primary storage drive. I keep using my computer and don't bother deleting useless stuff until my OS keeps bugging me that it's nearly full.
But then of course, I don't delete anything. I shut down the computer, put a sticker labeled "2018-2021" on it, store it away with all my other computers and order a new one with twice as much capacity.
I do the same thing with cars relative to the ashtray. It's getting expensive, thinking of switching to elec
Re: I don't get it (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The big difference there is that roads have both the human element behind them, as well as the acceleration/deceleration physics which makes them a non-constant speed. Let this simulation run for a minute or two, then play around with it. Good stuff! https://traffic-simulation.de/ [traffic-simulation.de]
Re: I don't get it (Score:2)
Re:I don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)
Is the cost primarily driven by switch-port cost? Or, is the cost primarily driven by their uplink-to-backbone cost?
From previous reading, it's not driven by backbone cost. The largest costs are the physical maintenance, the replacement of hardware -- on a planned, scheduled basis -- and administrative overhead. The costs don't change considerably for a large ISP for the amount of data customers use. WOW is certainly not paying $10 for 50GB of internet backbone data.
When the costs are infrastructure- and not service-dependent, it can be argued that you should be charged by the infrastructure (speed) that you're using, not how much of it (bandwidth) you use. (Like roads? Like roads, the internet is important for _everyone_ to have.)
Largely as well, it's nigh impossible to measure how much bandwidth you're using, know how much bandwidth your applications(refrigerator) are using, and even for people who are able to measure that(kill-a-watt), the numbers never line up with what the ISP reports. With electricity, you have an electric meter on your house, and you can watch it spin.
Perhaps my first assumption, the cost of backbone capacity for an ISP doesn't change considerably ($10-$30/mo) for the amount of data that a customer uses, is incorrect. Certainly it's not $10/50GB, however. That's just a money-grab.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And if you encourage the use of p2p and host common cdn endpoints, a lot of the traffic won't traverse the transit links and won't cost the isp anything at all.
Re: I don't get it (Score:2)
ISPs pay less than $2000/month for 10Gbps of dedicated global transit and much less if they are big enough to buy in 100Gbps increments
How many 1 Gbps customers can an ISP support on a 10 Gbps transit? If we assume every customer is entitled to a full 1 Gbps feed 24/7, then the answer is ten, but to make access affordable, ISPs over provision and quote speeds "up to" 1 Gbps, and the more actual data a user actually uses factors into the over provisioning calculation, changing the per customer share of the transit cost (if customers use twice as much data, you have to halve the over provisioning ratio).
Re: (Score:2)
and if say each node only has 10G and you have say 100 homes on that node there is no way that each sub can pull 1G down 24/7
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, there's plenty for everyone if the network is properly constructed and provisioned. The same is true for electricity. And just as people who use more electricity have to pay more, so should people who transfer more data.
I can't believe I'm reading this here. If I saw this on a non-tech site, it wouldn't surprise me, but not here. I'm not sure if it's ignorance of networks, or ignorance of electrical generation/distribution, but this is incredibly ignorant.
An ISP doesn't need to generate data. It's not like they have to have a huge data plant that is roiling and boiling and steaming to produce data for their customers.
Electricity has to be generated and that costs money. Data is, well, let's just say it's not generated by the ISP. The ISP pays NOTHING for the data. All it has to do is provide the network on which the data is transferred.
Re:I don't get it (Score:4, Informative)
And, it's you who seems to be ignorant of networking - ISPs build out based on statistical models, and provides an incentive for customers to avoid indiscriminate network use, like leaving streaming running 24/7. There's not an ISP which can handle full bandwidth to all customers simultaneously. Putting a cost on data volume is perfectly reasonable, it pushes the expense to where it's used. The alternative would be to charge everyone enough to support simultaneous full bandwidth constantly, and most customers don't need anything close to that.
Aside from the insulting pizza analogy, I don't see anything wrong with what they're doing. Worst case, it costs an extra $50 a month for unlimited volume. So, if you want unlimited volume, just plan on that, and consider paying less to be a discount.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What they're doing wrong is charging the same for off-peak bandwidth as for on-peak bandwidth.
Re:I don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)
Whoosh. Providing more bandwidth and capacity involves more infrastructure and interconnect costs. That was the OP's point.
But it's a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad and incorrect point. You either have enough bandwidth for peak usage, or you don't. Data caps don't do anything to alleviate peak usage. And you can't bank bandwidth during off peak times (like you can electricity). It's just a horrible analogy that doesn't work to describe this situation. At all.
Is it another way to charge for their service so that they can fund further expansion of their network? Sure, it's a disincentive for heavy users, as well as an additional source of income, but don't lie about what that extra charge is actually for.
Re: (Score:2)
But you're an idiot, and expect something for nothing.
So, there's that.
What?
Why in the world would you say that. It's absolutely a business model that has some validity.
What we're talking about is the ridiculousness of the analogy. Why don't you sit down and let the adults talk now.
Re: (Score:2)
Now you're questioning my English? You're a trip.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is how the ISPs handle it. They advertise that there is no cap, when there really is a hidden cap. Then when someone goes over the hidden cap they suddenly change the contract. If I was Mike I think I would sue them for changing the terms of the contract. ISPs have two ways to handle this fairly: 1) either put the hidden cap in their contracts from the beginning instead of performing the bait-and-switch. or 2) Honor the contract and upgrade the nodes for that small group of people who are us
Re: (Score:2)
There's not an ISP which can handle full bandwidth to all customers simultaneously
At what level? My local ISP claims exactly this. "We don't sell up-to, we sell you dedicated bandwidth that you always get". After talking to a senior network admin, I was informed their internal network is fully committed. They can handle 100% of all customers at 100% of their provisioned rates at the same time. The only place they statistically multiplex is their peering links. Which they make sure the 95% percentile load is below 50%.
I wanted to learn more, so I got in touch with their network manager.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Other that businesses arbitrarily using a business model that involved fees, can you describe the actual cost involved in moving a byte from New York to Los Angeles? Sure, all the networks have to pay for the initial infrastructure and the electricity and tech support to keep it running, but what's the additional cost to move a byte from one place to another? Tell me how 10 GB costs more than 10 MB to transfer.
Re: I don't get it (Score:2)
So you are saying that 10 GB costs just as much as 10 MB to shuttle across the continent? Interesting. ISPs contract for bandwidth over time, you are describing a small portion of that product (speed x time), and common sense would predict that a transfer of 1,000x greater size would incur 1,000x as much of the resource, costing some 1,000x more. Of course, the cost per Meg or Giga is small, but the 1,000x factor applies.
Re: (Score:2)
So you are saying that 10 GB costs just as much as 10 MB to shuttle across the continent? Interesting. ISPs contract for bandwidth over time, you are describing a small portion of that product (speed x time), and common sense would predict that a transfer of 1,000x greater size would incur 1,000x as much of the resource, costing some 1,000x more. Of course, the cost per Meg or Giga is small, but the 1,000x factor applies.
I clearly asked a question without making a statement, and clearly excluded fees (contracts for bandwidth) as well as infrastructure/maintenance costs. Let's pretend that one entity owned all the networks. In that case, what would be the difference in cost, since we know the networks are built to handled orders of magnitude larger amounts of data.
I'm sure there's some miniscule difference in cost (electricity usage?). But my point is that, on an established network, it's built to a certain capacity and
Re: (Score:2)
Electricity has to be generated and that costs money. Data is, well, let's just say it's not generated by the ISP. The ISP pays NOTHING for the data. All it has to do is provide the network on which the data is transferred.
That's a load of bullshit. Ever heard of interconnect fees? Of course you haven't or you wouldn't have made that blanket statement.
If your network is sucking down huge amounts of data there absolutely can be surcharges that go along with that. And not just from the company YOU purchase your bandwidth from. If you're not getting your data from a Tier 1 provider, then your provider is paying someone "rent" for your data to flow across the Tier 1 network. They aren't providing that service for free.
Re: (Score:3)
That's just even further away from the analogy, so thanks for reinforcing my point. If we want to talk about the layers of networks involved, then we'd have to talk about the layers of electrical generation/grid/distribution.
The fact is that an ISP doesn't generate data for you to consume. Bandwidth isn't consumed. There's an amount that is available for use. You either have enough or you don't. There's nothing that has to be generated by your ISP for you to continually have bandwidth on their network.
Re: (Score:1)
That's just even further away from the analogy, so thanks for reinforcing my point. If we want to talk about the layers of networks involved, then we'd have to talk about the layers of electrical generation/grid/distribution.
The fact is that an ISP doesn't generate data for you to consume. Bandwidth isn't consumed. There's an amount that is available for use. You either have enough or you don't. There's nothing that has to be generated by your ISP for you to continually have bandwidth on their network.
Would someone please come up with a car analogy for these guys?
Okay. Fair point. But your implication seems to be that there is no cost to shuttling that data around. That is patently false. Equipment consumes electricity. Leases and insurances must be paid. Payroll must be met. And then there are the upgrades.. Constant upgrades.. Your 1 gig line is saturated? Gotta get another one. 1 gig, where I'm at, of commercial interconnect bandwidth is $1,800/month. (no typos there).
The 80/20 rule almost always applies. 20% of your customers will be responsible for
Re: (Score:2)
Great points. But I'll say the same thing I said to someone else: This is a valid business model, but lying to your customers with a silly and incorrect analogy isn't the way to implement it.
There are better business models, too. My ISP charges according to bandwidth, not data consumed. If you throttle someone's speed, that will also put a data cap in place without needing to cap it. You can't download more than will flow through your pipe. And I feel you on the bandwidth costs. I pay $150 a month fo
Re: (Score:1)
My ISP charges according to bandwidth, not data consumed. If you throttle someone's speed, that will also put a data cap in place without needing to cap it. You can't download more than will flow through your pipe.
As do I. I charge for speed not data. And of course we keep spare capacity. But in reasonable amounts (30%). Before lock-down the prime hours were as you described, but even during those we weren't maxed out. Even during the prime hours not everyone was using all their bandwidth or was even home. There was always slack. That all ended with lock-down.
And I disagree that you can't keep capacity around doing nothing. You absolutely can. Most (good) ISPs do.
Some yes. But it's another financial factor and I have to adjust prices accordingly. Too much spare capacity and prices will be too high. I have to operate
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Interesting)
Pineapple (Score:4, Funny)
More importantly, what's their opinion about pineapple on their network/pizza?
(You know, like the Wi-Fi devices?)
Re: Pineapple (Score:2)
Fine, so long as they also have anchovies.
Re: (Score:2)
Ftfy (Score:2)
Condescending and disingenuous (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do they even care if you go over the cap (and, thus, have a cap) if they have extra capacity:
That extra slice is like a data overage. Don't worry -- we got extra pizza... umm, data... just in case.
I'll tell you why: $$$
I suppose Starlink will welcome some ex WOW users. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they are so happily letting them out.
Who said Starlink will never have data caps?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No one said that. However, right now they don't and that will be attractive to people who want unlimited data.
And are they the beta service where other broadband options exist right now?
Re: (Score:2)
And are they offering the beta service where other broadband options exist right now?
Re: (Score:1)
No one said that. However, right now they don't and that will be attractive to people who want unlimited data.
Yep.. And that's exactly why they will have to have them eventually. Starlink is in orbit. They can't lay more fiber to a node.. All the data has to be beamed up wirelessly. Starlink only has a finite amount of spectrum. They'll attract the people who want huge amounts of data and then.. there will be a backlash.
Back when @home started, there were no data caps either.. And then.... there were.
Now I'm really confused (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
How do they get all that pizza to go through the series of tubes?
Peristalsis [wikipedia.org]
[... you didn't specify which "series of tubes" ...]
Re: (Score:2)
Are your pizzas square or round?
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Here's a better analogy (Score:2)
Pizza place overs free refills on drinks. Pizza place stops offering refills. I stop going to pizza place because the value's not there for me. If I can't go to another pizzeria then I will finish everything that I've paid for.
When I have unlimited data I only use it when I need it. When I have limited data I make sure to use all I paid for. Which raises a question... what's the most obnoxious way to burn up a few gigs? Back in ye olden days p2p was great because it caused latencies elsewhere. Whatcha
free refills end and when some get's an $10 coke (Score:2)
free refills end and when some get's an $10 coke bill the server get's an $0 tip and then free refills come back very fast
PSA: 10Gb dedicated transit costs <$2000/month (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:PSA: 10Gb dedicated transit costs $2000/month (Score:2)
Optimization (Score:2)
Nobody wants the infra to stay idle. So airlines overbook, and ISPs over-subscribe.
In theory this should be all fine and dandy, in reality things are not so rosy. More people show up at the gate than expected, and all off a sudden the airline will need to compensate people who could not fly that day. ISPs: no compensation for you, but we will gladly throttle your data, or better, actually charge for overages.
I would be all for doing this for efficiency, but things are not advertised honestly. The airline do
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I give it about a year before vendors like this are history.
-jcr
WoW or Starlink? Starlink will place caps when they get enough customers. At the moment they are still a new pizza parlour trying to get people in the door.
Reminds me of paying for long distance phone calls (Score:2)
Technology moves forward constantly and obsoletes old pricing models in its wake.
That's how "data caps" feel in the present time, where everyone is paying money for streaming video services that use bandwidth and doing videoconferences as a necessary part of a work-day, or as part of today's classroom experience.
Realistically, the ISP needs to offer flat monthly pricing that's fair for the speed of data someone is willing to pay to consume. Beyond that, they shouldn't be concerned with capping monthly trans
This is true in theory (Score:2)
In theory, bandwidth is limited and shared between all users. When one user uses more, others get less.
In practice, ISPs lie about capacity and simply want more money when there is no actual need to ration
Limit per second, not per month. (Score:3)
Why would it be too difficult to limit bandwidth per second, rather than per month, with pay bands set accordingly?
I specifically recall ... (Score:2)
Just Like Pizza (Score:2)
If its pizza why are other people eating my piece, if I am paying for 1Gbps worth of pizza other people should not be able to put their grubby hands on it.
Or maybe data usage isn't like pizza, we will never know
yeah, right (Score:3)
"Internet data doesn't run out and that there is plenty for everyone as long as a network is properly constructed and provisioned."
You mean like if the Internet is properly provisioned and constructed. Which it ain't.
The whole internet is not some free for all of unlimited bandwidth. Every route through the internet has differences in size, access, and cost. It can cost two different rates to use the same internet service in the same *neighborhood*, all depending on a number of factors ranging from contracts to peering points to infrastructure.
And regardless of what anyone tells you, running a large ISP includes significant capital layout and management, on top of peering contracts, on top of network infrastructure. Costs fluctuate, and of everyone paid the same, the overall price would be much higher.
But a competitor can play an interesting game of "shift the cost", to make the average cost *appear* much cheaper, and therefore gain more subscribers. You can't just charge the same everywhere and provide the same access everywhere, or your competitor would provide it "cheaper", you'd lose your subscribers, and go out of business.
Another reason ISPs charge extra is an artificial bandwidth control. If everyone maxes out their pipes, you have to impose QoS, or the connections' latency and bandwidth begins to eat itself due to things like PPS limits, retransmissions, fragmentation, etc.
It's way more complicated than that, though, and there is no use trying to convince people, because they just want to pay as little as possible, so they pretend it's just greed.
If it's like pizza... (Score:2)
Will I get a refund for that slice?
Seems fair enough (Score:2)
Actually, a pizza shop doesn't run out if it is "properly constructed and provisioned" to feed every customer all they can eat all the time. Of course, such provisioning would be very expensive so no pizza shop offers such a plan (at least at any "reasonable" price). In the context of an ISP, "running out" doesn't literally mean "runni
1 1/2 Hours a Day (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A 1TB cap is one terabyte of data. A 50Mbps service gives 50 Megabits (not bytes) of download bandwidth, assuming that your modem/router had managed to negotiate full line speed with your ISP's rack at their distribution point and assuming that you get a full allocation of bandwidth...
But we also know that there are QoS and packet overheads, so 50Mbps might be roughly equal to 5 megabytes once you factor that.
1 terabyte is equal to 1,024 gigabytes... and 1 gig
Wow! (Score:2)
Mmm Pizza (Score:2)
I was going to sign up for their internet service, but then I read that and got hungry, so I ordered a pizza instead.
No wonder! (Score:1)
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, South Carolina, and Tennessee
No wonder they needed a kindergarten level analogy, their customers are in Trump supporting smoothbrain hick states! Might have been a more effective analogy to ask how many times you can fuck a roadkill possum before it explodes with cum, and thus you need to scrape another one from the asphalt.
Condescending? (Score:2)
So the equivalent of pizza margherita... (Score:2)
But their territory... (Score:1)
Funny Because (Score:1)
major cell carriers just quit the practice of charging for overage and changed to slowing traffic when you exceed your limit. Now landline want to charge for overages. A lot of people donâ(TM)t like having an inconsistent and especially unpredictablish bill. I donâ(TM)t think this will be popular with customers, but that telecoms have traditionally cared about that. Youâ(TM)d almost think they like being hated.